The people who design the process are usually the first to ignore it.

I’ve been part of more than one attempt to “fix” it. It always looks good on paper. We mapped it out, documented it, agreed what good looks like. We congratulate ourselves for a job well done, then roll it out and everyone moves on.

Problem is, most of the time, the documented version is based on how leadership thinks work happens, not how it actually does. When the two don’t match, people fall back to what they know.

They know how to get sh*t done. Who to call, what moves fastest, how to keep it simple. So the well-worn paths prevail.

You see it at both ends. On smaller projects, the process feels cumbersome. Too many steps, too much structure for what’s needed. Bits get skipped and meetings get avoided and people just get on with it.

On the bigger ones, the “ideal” scenario in the doc rarely exists. So people work around it. Sometimes they’re just making it up as they go along, trying their best to get to the right outcome.

I don’t think people are trying to dodge process, quite the opposite in fact. It’s not about cheating the system. They’re working overtime, balancing competing agendas, weighing things up, making trade-offs, finding a way through.

Where it often breaks down is with leadership. Senior people are often the first to ignore process, even when they’ve helped define it. Their voice is the loudest, so the system bends around them.

We’ve all seen this happen: they skip the formal brief and jump on a call instead. They pull in whoever they need, when they need them and bypass any of the steps that slow things down. “This one’s different!”

In my experience, process fails because it’s built for a version of work that doesn’t exist. What I’ve seen work better is something a bit looser: clear guardrails, a few well placed checkpoints at the right moments and enough flexibility for teams to use their judgement.

The “right” way isn’t always the best way.

And the people doing the work usually know that first.